There's been a good deal of commentary about Miley Cyrus' performance at the 2013 VMAs. Most people have commented with shock and upset over her sexual gyrations, one site gave a sickeningly truthful reason for her press coverage (I'll deal with later), and some considered that there is a more godly way of responding to her actions, taking the religious "Jesus loves Miley" trump card out of the deck and spreading guilt to any who might've voiced their gut-reaction nausea at her behavior.

What I wish I'd seen more of, but only found a piece or two over, was a public outcry against Robin Thicke, her male dance partner in the debacle. One father, Matt Walsh, wrote an open letter to his son asking his son not to let Robin be a lesson to him, i.e. don't follow an example like that. Instead, he gives a number of great ideas about what being a man really means, what it looks like, and how seldom--if ever--the qualities we should strive for as men are praised or exalted in media outlets and by entertainment icons.

Some have taken personal shots at Miley, and social media sites abound with opportunities to poke fun at the Disney star-turned-young adult.

The problem in this whole debacle is that we have once again failed to place the blame where it really belongs: on ourselves. We are the reason Miley and Robin are the sex symbols they are today. We are the reason the VMAs have, year after year, sought to outdo previous years in jaw-dropping, boundary-pushing, sensational performances. We, the people, have been asking for it. We, the people, have failed to stand up and say, "Nope, not interested in this stuff." We, the people, have been passively submitting to whatever the media peddles to us without giving much thought to the driving forces behind the entertainment.

What are the driving forces behind the entertainment, you might ask?

Money and ratings. Simply put, whatever brings in the most money for those involved, or drives ratings up (which in turn brings more money to those involved), will receive the full backing and encouragement of TV, music, and movie media professionals. This is the sad, vulgar, and heart-wrenchingly accurate assessment given by the equal-opportunity satirizing "news" site called The Onion. I link the article not to encourage its reading, but only so I don't plagiarize their ideas, or shall I say, their intellectual property? The truly ironic twist to the story is that even their satirical bent on Miley's stage gyrations, and surprisingly adept explanation of why they've received such attention, takes part in the kind of cultural degradation that so many in the media are guilty of exploiting and encouraging.

The language used in the Onion article is typical of popular comedy in general today. It typifies uninhibited frat boys, working on their journalism degrees and searching for some guest-writing spots to earn more beer money, pounding away at their keyboards while they skip classes and eat Cheetos in their boxers and "wife-beaters." Of course they write like that, because it's the kind of stuff they think is funny, and they know that those like them will not only click on links to read such editorials, but they will also spend more of their money/time on movies, music, and TV that use the same content. This is why we're up to Scary Movie 6 (I think?), the movies Jackass and Hangover actually had sequels made, and Explicit Lyrics labels on songs almost guarantee a listen (at the very least) out of curiosity for why it's explicit.

Think about an ordinance being discussed in San Antonio, TX. The proposed ordinance would effectively ban from government work any person who disagrees with (now or in the past) any sexual identity outside heterosexuality. These things are nonsensical to me. Our culture is not as inclusive as it purports; it is accepting and tolerant of agreeing points of view, but not of those that differ from its own.

That's not tolerance, people.

It's like saying to your spouse while she's lying in your arms all cozy and warm, both of you smiling with closed eyes, "I am so patient with you right now." Do we even get why that statement makes no sense given the setting? It's the wrong word, used at the wrong time, so it does't fit.

If you could only have greater understanding for yourself or another (not both at the same time), what would you choose and why? Let me know in the comments!

Leave a Reply.

Author

I write to remember the lessons I learn as a Man, Husband, Father, Son, Brother, Pastor, and Friend. As I come to grips with the blackness within me, I am more appreciative of God's grace-filled grip. We all change in the seasons of life. This is my deep well...